MetacelloBrowser ui...
Locked
12
12
 
|
I am very close to deciding to do a web-based ui for MetacelloBrowser...
It is very important that the MetacelloBrowser have common functionality across all three Monticello platforms: GemStone, Pharo, and Squeak. But the only common UI framework is OmniBrowser and I am afraid that OmniBrowser isn't flexible enough to build a wizard-like ui for interactively constructing a configuration ... I think it would be pretty trivial (for me anyway) to build such and interface on the web ... I would need help with CSS magic for a nice layout, but I.m pretty sure that I could get the basic functionality laid out across multiple pages pretty easily ... AFAIK it is just no technically feasible to build a wizard-style interface in OmniBrowser, so there don't appear to be any other cross platform solutions... I writing this, because I am hoping that one of you will be able to _prove_ me wrong:) If not, I will be force to begin work on a browser-based MetacelloBrowser ... Dale |
|
|
How will a web browser interact with version of package in my image when
I am updating a configuration to include the fresh changes I made to mcz files. Will save "on the cloud" somewhere? I don't get the full picture here. Cheers El lun, 25-04-2011 a las 08:29 -0700, Dale Henrichs escribió: > I am very close to deciding to do a web-based ui for MetacelloBrowser... > > It is very important that the MetacelloBrowser have common functionality > across all three Monticello platforms: GemStone, Pharo, and Squeak. But > the only common UI framework is OmniBrowser and I am afraid that > OmniBrowser isn't flexible enough to build a wizard-like ui for > interactively constructing a configuration ... > > I think it would be pretty trivial (for me anyway) to build such and > interface on the web ... I would need help with CSS magic for a nice > layout, but I.m pretty sure that I could get the basic functionality > laid out across multiple pages pretty easily ... > > AFAIK it is just no technically feasible to build a wizard-style > interface in OmniBrowser, so there don't appear to be any other cross > platform solutions... > > I writing this, because I am hoping that one of you will be able to > _prove_ me wrong:) > > If not, I will be force to begin work on a browser-based > MetacelloBrowser ... > > Dale -- Miguel Cobá http://twitter.com/MiguelCobaMtz http://miguel.leugim.com.mx |
|
|
On 04/25/2011 08:50 AM, Miguel Cobá wrote:
> How will a web browser interact with version of package in my image when > I am updating a configuration to include the fresh changes I made to mcz > files. > Will save "on the cloud" somewhere? > > I don't get the full picture here. It could be made to work, I wish it could be made to work for OmniBrowser:( or another GUI framework, but my GUI framework foo is pretty minimal... The web browser could interact with a web-server in the image-itself ... so it would be operating on the contents of the image ... not pretty, but I don't have many other alternatives:( I'm considering using Iliad, because it is smaller than OmniBrowser. The current MBInfo model is structured such that all of the work is done in the model itself ... I would take a similar approach to the wizard ... 99.9% of the business logic would be implemented in a model object that is GUI framework neutral ... I just need a GUI framework where I won't spend more time futzing with the framework (because I am not an experted) than doing the actual work ... |
Re: MetacelloBrowser ui...
|
|
Hi Dale. I guess you are already aware of...but ... SUPPOSE that Glamour is enough for your needs. Glamour can result in plain Morphic but also in seaside. So would be able to have both flavors: image based in Glamour for those who want everything image based, and a web alternative (for example for Gemstone).
But...I have no idea how stable/complete the GlamourWeb is, nor if it contains what you need. And finally, did you consider SeasideXUL ? But I guess it may happens what you don't want: spend more time in the framework than in your job :( Cheers Mariano On Mon, Apr 25, 2011 at 6:06 PM, Dale Henrichs <[hidden email]> wrote:
-- Mariano http://marianopeck.wordpress.com |
|
|
On 04/25/2011 09:12 AM, Mariano Martinez Peck wrote:
> Hi Dale. I guess you are already aware of...but ... SUPPOSE that Glamour > is enough for your needs. Glamour can result in plain Morphic but also > in seaside. So would be able to have both flavors: image based in > Glamour for those who want everything image based, and a web alternative > (for example for Gemstone). > But...I have no idea how stable/complete the GlamourWeb is, nor if it > contains what you need. > > And finally, did you consider SeasideXUL ? But I guess it may happens > what you don't want: spend more time in the framework than in your job :( I don't have Glamour ported to GemStone (has it been ported to Squeak?) and I don't know if I gain in the end ... Can one build a wizard in Glamour ? ... I've spent a lot of time trying to bend OmniBrowser to my will, but there are some things that are just not easy to do in OmniBrowser ... I don't know myself if Glamour can do what i have in mind or how much bending to my will it will take:) If someone built a wizard in Glamour for creating a complex configuration (like Seaside or Moose) then it might be enough to motivate my to attempt the port:) But if is up to me, I am going to go with something I already know (I just don't have enough time to do what I know, let alone what I don't know) I already pretty much know what I would have to do to do a wizard for a web browser ... I appreciate the suggestions to use framework x, y, or z to solve the problem, but I am not an expert in any of the frameworks, and if a framework isn't ported to GemStone is it worth porting the framework to GemStone only to find that it doesn't fill the bill? Conversely if I build the wizard in technology z and then find out that it is very difficult to port to GemStone, where am I? Using a web framework I am very confident that I could get a model/ui built that does the job and is portable to all three platforms ... I can't say that (with confidence) for any other approach... Dale |
Re: MetacelloBrowser ui...
|
|
On Mon, Apr 25, 2011 at 6:37 PM, Dale Henrichs <[hidden email]> wrote:
I don't know that neither. If someone built a wizard in Glamour for creating a complex configuration (like Seaside or Moose) then it might be enough to motivate my to attempt the port:) If fact, what I was thinking is that from Glamour you can generate the Seaside output, so for Gemstone you don't need to port anything, just use the seaside components generated from Glamour (be careful, this is how I think Glamour-seaside works but maybe I am wrong and you need glamour anyway) Using a web framework I am very confident that I could get a model/ui built that does the job and is portable to all three platforms ... I can't say that (with confidence) for any other approach... Sure. But it is realy really bad to see we don't have a single way of creating portable browsers/wizzard or whatever they are called between 3 dialects. -- Mariano http://marianopeck.wordpress.com |
|
|
Hi,
Glamour should be able to accommodate your requests. Just a note, Glamour is not a user interface framework, it is a browser framework, and it's goal is to help you browse and manipulate data. I have a bit of time this week and I could work on this. I propose to start from a list of use cases. When I say use cases I do not mean user interface use cases. I would be interested in the activities that you would like to accomplish. Cheers, Doru On 25 Apr 2011, at 18:46, Mariano Martinez Peck wrote: > > > On Mon, Apr 25, 2011 at 6:37 PM, Dale Henrichs <[hidden email]> wrote: > On 04/25/2011 09:12 AM, Mariano Martinez Peck wrote: > Hi Dale. I guess you are already aware of...but ... SUPPOSE that Glamour > is enough for your needs. Glamour can result in plain Morphic but also > in seaside. So would be able to have both flavors: image based in > Glamour for those who want everything image based, and a web alternative > (for example for Gemstone). > But...I have no idea how stable/complete the GlamourWeb is, nor if it > contains what you need. > > And finally, did you consider SeasideXUL ? But I guess it may happens > what you don't want: spend more time in the framework than in your job :( > > I don't have Glamour ported to GemStone (has it been ported to Squeak?) and I don't know if I gain in the end ... Can one build a wizard in Glamour ? ... I've spent a lot of time trying to bend OmniBrowser to my will, but there are some things that are just not easy to do in OmniBrowser ... I don't know myself if Glamour can do what i have in mind or how much bending to my will it will take:) > > > I don't know that neither. > > If someone built a wizard in Glamour for creating a complex configuration (like Seaside or Moose) then it might be enough to motivate my to attempt the port:) > > But if is up to me, I am going to go with something I already know (I just don't have enough time to do what I know, let alone what I don't know) > > I already pretty much know what I would have to do to do a wizard for a web browser ... > > I appreciate the suggestions to use framework x, y, or z to solve the problem, but I am not an expert in any of the frameworks, and if a framework isn't ported to GemStone is it worth porting the framework to GemStone only to find that it doesn't fill the bill? Conversely if I build the wizard in technology z and then find out that it is very difficult to port to GemStone, where am I? > > > If fact, what I was thinking is that from Glamour you can generate the Seaside output, so for Gemstone you don't need to port anything, just use the seaside components generated from Glamour (be careful, this is how I think Glamour-seaside works but maybe I am wrong and you need glamour anyway) > > Using a web framework I am very confident that I could get a model/ui built that does the job and is portable to all three platforms ... I can't say that (with confidence) for any other approach... > > > Sure. But it is realy really bad to see we don't have a single way of creating portable browsers/wizzard or whatever they are called between 3 dialects. > > > -- > Mariano > http://marianopeck.wordpress.com > -- www.tudorgirba.com "No matter how many recipes we know, we still value a chef." |
|
|
On 04/26/2011 02:01 PM, Tudor Girba wrote:
> Hi, > > Glamour should be able to accommodate your requests. Just a note, Glamour is not a user interface framework, it is a browser framework, and it's goal is to help you browse and manipulate data. > > I have a bit of time this week and I could work on this. I propose to start from a list of use cases. When I say use cases I do not mean user interface use cases. I would be interested in the activities that you would like to accomplish. > > Cheers, > Doru > What resources does Glamour require? ... For GemStone, OmniBrowser is the only framework supported ... there is no native Morphic, so because OmniBrowser was architected with a small intefact between Morphic and the Browser model, I was able to "make it work" with GemStone as the server and Pharo as the client ... Sooo that is the main limiting factor in "porting" Glamour to GemStone ... The use case of the moment is providing support for constructing complex configurations, including conditional packages ... the works ... I have a concept of how I'd like to accomplish this, but it has not fully emerged as something that I can completely articulate ... I haven't drawn any pictures either, so the only picture is in my brain:) The short term goal would be to improve the simple interface reachable by the +Configuration button ... There we have several steps that are performed in a series of dialog boxes, so just putting the individual operations into a single window with forms fill out for textual items and drag/drop from a list of packages for the initial specification ... This would give us a starting point to work towards the complexity of specifying something like Moose or Seaside ... where required/included packages are specified and specs are moved around between conditional sections ... Projects are dropped onto the version window from a list of projects and then the basic template (name, configuration name and repository) can be editted expanded ... Dale |
Re: MetacelloBrowser ui...
|
|
dale
nick should be working on remote tools for his phd and may be gemstone could be a validation too. Stef On Apr 26, 2011, at 11:27 PM, Dale Henrichs wrote: > On 04/26/2011 02:01 PM, Tudor Girba wrote: >> Hi, >> >> Glamour should be able to accommodate your requests. Just a note, Glamour is not a user interface framework, it is a browser framework, and it's goal is to help you browse and manipulate data. >> >> I have a bit of time this week and I could work on this. I propose to start from a list of use cases. When I say use cases I do not mean user interface use cases. I would be interested in the activities that you would like to accomplish. >> >> Cheers, >> Doru >> > > What resources does Glamour require? ... For GemStone, OmniBrowser is the only framework supported ... there is no native Morphic, so because OmniBrowser was architected with a small intefact between Morphic and the Browser model, I was able to "make it work" with GemStone as the server and Pharo as the client ... > > Sooo that is the main limiting factor in "porting" Glamour to GemStone ... > > The use case of the moment is providing support for constructing complex configurations, including conditional packages ... the works ... I have a concept of how I'd like to accomplish this, but it has not fully emerged as something that I can completely articulate ... I haven't drawn any pictures either, so the only picture is in my brain:) > > The short term goal would be to improve the simple interface reachable by the +Configuration button ... There we have several steps that are performed in a series of dialog boxes, so just putting the individual operations into a single window with forms fill out for textual items and drag/drop from a list of packages for the initial specification ... > > This would give us a starting point to work towards the complexity of specifying something like Moose or Seaside ... where required/included packages are specified and specs are moved around between conditional sections ... Projects are dropped onto the version window from a list of projects and then the basic template (name, configuration name and repository) can be editted expanded ... > > Dale |
|
|
Nick, Doru,
I am obviously interested in this ... The current OmniBrowser-based "remote tools suite" for GemStone is adequate, but not ideal ... the cut point for the interface between GemStone and Pharo (the client GUI) is at the update:/changed: layer which can be VERY CHATTY across the wire ... I am intrigued by the idea of javascript-browser-based tools, but development tools in the browser will have to be "different" than the traditional image-based tools, just because the browser itself is different ... I would like to understand where the basic cut point for Glamour is and find out if there is a natural point to "insert the wire" between the Morphic-window and the server ... Since GemStone has no native gui, all tools must be remote:) Dale On 04/26/2011 02:45 PM, stephane ducasse wrote: > dale > > nick should be working on remote tools for his phd and may be gemstone could be a validation too. > > Stef > > On Apr 26, 2011, at 11:27 PM, Dale Henrichs wrote: > >> On 04/26/2011 02:01 PM, Tudor Girba wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> Glamour should be able to accommodate your requests. Just a note, Glamour is not a user interface framework, it is a browser framework, and it's goal is to help you browse and manipulate data. >>> >>> I have a bit of time this week and I could work on this. I propose to start from a list of use cases. When I say use cases I do not mean user interface use cases. I would be interested in the activities that you would like to accomplish. >>> >>> Cheers, >>> Doru >>> >> >> What resources does Glamour require? ... For GemStone, OmniBrowser is the only framework supported ... there is no native Morphic, so because OmniBrowser was architected with a small intefact between Morphic and the Browser model, I was able to "make it work" with GemStone as the server and Pharo as the client ... >> >> Sooo that is the main limiting factor in "porting" Glamour to GemStone ... >> >> The use case of the moment is providing support for constructing complex configurations, including conditional packages ... the works ... I have a concept of how I'd like to accomplish this, but it has not fully emerged as something that I can completely articulate ... I haven't drawn any pictures either, so the only picture is in my brain:) >> >> The short term goal would be to improve the simple interface reachable by the +Configuration button ... There we have several steps that are performed in a series of dialog boxes, so just putting the individual operations into a single window with forms fill out for textual items and drag/drop from a list of packages for the initial specification ... >> >> This would give us a starting point to work towards the complexity of specifying something like Moose or Seaside ... where required/included packages are specified and specs are moved around between conditional sections ... Projects are dropped onto the version window from a list of projects and then the basic template (name, configuration name and repository) can be editted expanded ... >> >> Dale > |
|
|
Hi Dale,
Glamour is independent from the rendering, just like Omnibrowser is. Here is a short description: http://www.themoosebook.org/book/internals/glamour/rendering We already have a working Seaside rendering code for the basic widgets of Glamour. For an example, take the following steps: 1. download http://hudson.moosetechnology.org/job/moose-with-glamour-seaside/lastSuccessfulBuild/artifact/moose-seaside/*zip*/moose-seaside.zip 2. run: WAKom startOn: 8081 3. go to: http://localhost:8081/moose/metaBrowser Cheers, Doru On 26 Apr 2011, at 23:56, Dale Henrichs wrote: > Nick, Doru, > > I am obviously interested in this ... The current OmniBrowser-based "remote tools suite" for GemStone is adequate, but not ideal ... the cut point for the interface between GemStone and Pharo (the client GUI) is at the update:/changed: layer which can be VERY CHATTY across the wire ... > > I am intrigued by the idea of javascript-browser-based tools, but development tools in the browser will have to be "different" than the traditional image-based tools, just because the browser itself is different ... > > I would like to understand where the basic cut point for Glamour is and find out if there is a natural point to "insert the wire" between the Morphic-window and the server ... > > Since GemStone has no native gui, all tools must be remote:) > > Dale > > On 04/26/2011 02:45 PM, stephane ducasse wrote: >> dale >> >> nick should be working on remote tools for his phd and may be gemstone could be a validation too. >> >> Stef >> >> On Apr 26, 2011, at 11:27 PM, Dale Henrichs wrote: >> >>> On 04/26/2011 02:01 PM, Tudor Girba wrote: >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> Glamour should be able to accommodate your requests. Just a note, Glamour is not a user interface framework, it is a browser framework, and it's goal is to help you browse and manipulate data. >>>> >>>> I have a bit of time this week and I could work on this. I propose to start from a list of use cases. When I say use cases I do not mean user interface use cases. I would be interested in the activities that you would like to accomplish. >>>> >>>> Cheers, >>>> Doru >>>> >>> >>> What resources does Glamour require? ... For GemStone, OmniBrowser is the only framework supported ... there is no native Morphic, so because OmniBrowser was architected with a small intefact between Morphic and the Browser model, I was able to "make it work" with GemStone as the server and Pharo as the client ... >>> >>> Sooo that is the main limiting factor in "porting" Glamour to GemStone ... >>> >>> The use case of the moment is providing support for constructing complex configurations, including conditional packages ... the works ... I have a concept of how I'd like to accomplish this, but it has not fully emerged as something that I can completely articulate ... I haven't drawn any pictures either, so the only picture is in my brain:) >>> >>> The short term goal would be to improve the simple interface reachable by the +Configuration button ... There we have several steps that are performed in a series of dialog boxes, so just putting the individual operations into a single window with forms fill out for textual items and drag/drop from a list of packages for the initial specification ... >>> >>> This would give us a starting point to work towards the complexity of specifying something like Moose or Seaside ... where required/included packages are specified and specs are moved around between conditional sections ... Projects are dropped onto the version window from a list of projects and then the basic template (name, configuration name and repository) can be editted expanded ... >>> >>> Dale >> > -- www.tudorgirba.com "Every thing has its own flow." |
|
|
On 04/26/2011 05:01 PM, Tudor Girba wrote:
> Hi Dale, > > Glamour is independent from the rendering, just like Omnibrowser is. Here is a short description: > http://www.themoosebook.org/book/internals/glamour/rendering > > We already have a working Seaside rendering code for the basic widgets of Glamour. For an example, take the following steps: > > 1. download > http://hudson.moosetechnology.org/job/moose-with-glamour-seaside/lastSuccessfulBuild/artifact/moose-seaside/*zip*/moose-seaside.zip > > 2. run: > WAKom startOn: 8081 > > 3. go to: > http://localhost:8081/moose/metaBrowser > > Cheers, > Doru I'll hold off exploring the scope of the Glamour port until I see if Glamour can be used to construct the configuration wizard:) I'm not skeptical as much as I am very busy... Did I provide you with enough info for the use case? Dale |
|
|
Hi Dale,
On 27 Apr 2011, at 02:22, Dale Henrichs wrote: > On 04/26/2011 05:01 PM, Tudor Girba wrote: >> Hi Dale, >> >> Glamour is independent from the rendering, just like Omnibrowser is. Here is a short description: >> http://www.themoosebook.org/book/internals/glamour/rendering >> >> We already have a working Seaside rendering code for the basic widgets of Glamour. For an example, take the following steps: >> >> 1. download >> http://hudson.moosetechnology.org/job/moose-with-glamour-seaside/lastSuccessfulBuild/artifact/moose-seaside/*zip*/moose-seaside.zip >> >> 2. run: >> WAKom startOn: 8081 >> >> 3. go to: >> http://localhost:8081/moose/metaBrowser >> >> Cheers, >> Doru > > I'll hold off exploring the scope of the Glamour port until I see if Glamour can be used to construct the configuration wizard:) > > I'm not skeptical as much as I am very busy... > > Did I provide you with enough info for the use case? Not really :). Cheers, Doru -- www.tudorgirba.com "Beauty is where we see it." |
|
|
On Apr 26, 2011, at 5:27 PM, Tudor Girba wrote: > Hi Dale, > > On 27 Apr 2011, at 02:22, Dale Henrichs wrote: > >> On 04/26/2011 05:01 PM, Tudor Girba wrote: >>> Hi Dale, >>> >>> Glamour is independent from the rendering, just like Omnibrowser is. Here is a short description: >>> http://www.themoosebook.org/book/internals/glamour/rendering >>> >>> We already have a working Seaside rendering code for the basic widgets of Glamour. For an example, take the following steps: >>> >>> 1. download >>> http://hudson.moosetechnology.org/job/moose-with-glamour-seaside/lastSuccessfulBuild/artifact/moose-seaside/*zip*/moose-seaside.zip >>> >>> 2. run: >>> WAKom startOn: 8081 >>> >>> 3. go to: >>> http://localhost:8081/moose/metaBrowser >>> >>> Cheers, >>> Doru >> >> I'll hold off exploring the scope of the Glamour port until I see if Glamour can be used to construct the configuration wizard:) >> >> I'm not skeptical as much as I am very busy... >> >> Did I provide you with enough info for the use case? > > Not really :). okay? |
|
|
In reply to this post by Tudor Girba
Am 2011-04-27 um 02:01 schrieb Tudor Girba: > Hi Dale, > > Glamour is independent from the rendering, just like Omnibrowser is. Here is a short description: > http://www.themoosebook.org/book/internals/glamour/rendering > > We already have a working Seaside rendering code for the basic widgets of Glamour. For an example, take the following steps: > > 1. download > http://hudson.moosetechnology.org/job/moose-with-glamour-seaside/lastSuccessfulBuild/artifact/moose-seaside/*zip*/moose-seaside.zip > > 2. run: > WAKom startOn: 8081 > > 3. go to: > http://localhost:8081/moose/metaBrowser > > Cheers, > Doru Is it usable in Squeak4.2? So Long, -Tobias |
|
|
Hi,
On 27 Apr 2011, at 07:30, Tobias Pape wrote: > > Am 2011-04-27 um 02:01 schrieb Tudor Girba: > >> Hi Dale, >> >> Glamour is independent from the rendering, just like Omnibrowser is. Here is a short description: >> http://www.themoosebook.org/book/internals/glamour/rendering >> >> We already have a working Seaside rendering code for the basic widgets of Glamour. For an example, take the following steps: >> >> 1. download >> http://hudson.moosetechnology.org/job/moose-with-glamour-seaside/lastSuccessfulBuild/artifact/moose-seaside/*zip*/moose-seaside.zip >> >> 2. run: >> WAKom startOn: 8081 >> >> 3. go to: >> http://localhost:8081/moose/metaBrowser >> >> Cheers, >> Doru > > Is it usable in Squeak4.2? I never tried but you are welcome to. If you do, please let us know what happened :) Cheers, Doru > So Long, > -Tobias > -- www.tudorgirba.com "There are no old things, there are only old ways of looking at them." |
|
|
Am 2011-04-27 um 09:33 schrieb Tudor Girba: >> […] >> Is it usable in Squeak4.2? > > I never tried but you are welcome to. If you do, please let us know what happened :) > > Cheers, > Doru > Can you give me some starting points? So Long, -Tobias |
|
|
Hi,
This is the default way to load the latest version: Gofer new squeaksource: 'Glamour'; package: 'ConfigurationOfGlamourSeaside'; load. (Smalltalk at: #ConfigurationOfGlamourSeaside) loadDefault. Cheers, Doru On 27 Apr 2011, at 10:17, Tobias Pape wrote: > > Am 2011-04-27 um 09:33 schrieb Tudor Girba: > >>> […] >>> Is it usable in Squeak4.2? >> >> I never tried but you are welcome to. If you do, please let us know what happened :) >> >> Cheers, >> Doru >> > > Can you give me some starting points? > > So Long, > -Tobias > -- www.tudorgirba.com "It's not how it is, it is how we see it." |
|
|
In reply to this post by Dale Henrichs
Hi,
On 27 Apr 2011, at 03:23, Dale Henrichs wrote: > > On Apr 26, 2011, at 5:27 PM, Tudor Girba wrote: > >> Hi Dale, >> >> On 27 Apr 2011, at 02:22, Dale Henrichs wrote: >> >>> On 04/26/2011 05:01 PM, Tudor Girba wrote: >>>> Hi Dale, >>>> >>>> Glamour is independent from the rendering, just like Omnibrowser is. Here is a short description: >>>> http://www.themoosebook.org/book/internals/glamour/rendering >>>> >>>> We already have a working Seaside rendering code for the basic widgets of Glamour. For an example, take the following steps: >>>> >>>> 1. download >>>> http://hudson.moosetechnology.org/job/moose-with-glamour-seaside/lastSuccessfulBuild/artifact/moose-seaside/*zip*/moose-seaside.zip >>>> >>>> 2. run: >>>> WAKom startOn: 8081 >>>> >>>> 3. go to: >>>> http://localhost:8081/moose/metaBrowser >>>> >>>> Cheers, >>>> Doru >>> >>> I'll hold off exploring the scope of the Glamour port until I see if Glamour can be used to construct the configuration wizard:) >>> >>> I'm not skeptical as much as I am very busy... >>> >>> Did I provide you with enough info for the use case? >> >> Not really :). > > okay? I re-read the original mail, and indeed there is enough information :). I will try to give it a try. What I saw is that there is basically no dependency between steps. Is that correct? If yes, then all steps would fit in a simple Magritte form. Cheers, Doru -- www.tudorgirba.com "It's not how it is, it is how we see it." |
|
|
In reply to this post by Dale Henrichs
Hello Nick,
So then the cut-point is at the level of message sends between the GUI and the model? How are events handled (messages from the model to the GUI) ... this is the spot where I think that OmniBrowser (in the GLASS implementation) started to falter ... there a large number of event messages that end up with more network round trips than one would like ... It seems that there is a need for some sort of "message concentrator" that cuts down on network round trips, but this is wandering into "early optimization" territory:) I think it would definitely be interesting to give this a try with GemStone as it has the potential to provide much more flexibility in terms of which GUI components can be used .... Dale
On Apr 27, 2011, at 1:27 AM, Nick Papoylias wrote: Hallo Dale, |
«
Return to Metacello
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |